Employees don't make the company happen, employees are an annoying cost. A liability that needs to be eradicated. If every company did away with these "employees", they would save millions to distribute to lottery-winning upper executives.

We'll get there someday. For now though, we can only cut bit by bit. Soon though, every company will gloriously be employee-free, and will finally be able to make the board even richer. It will be paradise.

If Wells Fargo felt it could be MORE profitable without 5,500 employees - it should either fire those 5,500 or reduce their pay.If an employee thinks they could make more money WITHOUT their job, or at another job - they should either quit or demand an increase in pay.

I really don't understand this mentality that so many people seem to have. 'A company is profitable, therefore, employees can't be fired!'

I worked for a company where the CEO felt the company was a big, happy family. As nobody was ever let go. But there was so much dead weight. But we were profitable....right until we weren't. Then, it was already too late. Laid off 1/4th of the staff, but they seemed to know exactly which 1/4th wasn't contributing....and I swear to God, productivity went up! Now, maybe I'm biased, but I swear, things were BETTER. As in, these people weren't just NOT contributing, they were actively impeding work.

Still, at that point, they company was so far gone, it didn't matter. I think it was 3 months more and the company declared bankruptcy and laid off almost another 1/2 of the employees.....while everyone who wasn't let go had started sending out resumes and even more people started to trickle out.

They'll want those people back in less than 2 years - and they won't be able to get 'em. Instead they'll get new folks with less experience, no loyalty to the company, no customer service skills, and will generally be a shiattier company going forward than they would have been if they invested in maintaining a strong workforce.

I worked for a company years ago whom I won't name, although I will say it rhymes with "Mockeed Lartin." There was a round of layoffs, accompanied by an email that said something like "These layoffs are painful, but necessary, for the company to continue its strong performance."

They seemed genuinely oblivious to the fact that anyone who gets laid off no longer gives a shiat about the company's performance. Anyway...TFH reminded me of that.

/But wait, I DO give a shiat! I still have, like, these nineteen shares!!1!//I wasn't laid off, so I did still give a shiat about the company's performance. I'm just sayin'...

Fark_Guy_Rob:I really don't understand this mentality that so many people seem to have. 'A company is profitable, therefore, employees can't be fired!'

Seems like there should be a balance, though. We're at a point now where if a company like Wells Fargo posts, say, a $1.1 billion quarterly profit, but Wall Street (somewhat) arbitrarily thought they should have made $1.2 billion that quarter, their stock will take a 10-15% hit and the talking heads are on TV for a week yelling "Sell, Mortimer, Sell". Or, if their profits only rose 10% instead of 11%....HOLY CRAP PANIC WHAT IS WRONG WITH WELLS FARGO??? There's nothing wrong with Wells Fargo, their profits rose 10% for pete's sake, but now a bunch of computer programs can make $47 million in 20 seconds shorting the stock.

People are routinely getting laid off/fired not because the company is doing terrible or they're dead weight, but because the company did slightly worse than the expectations of a bunch of individuals who's only interest in the company is how much money they can make off of it buying or selling their stock.

Fark_Guy_Rob:If Wells Fargo felt it could be MORE profitable without 5,500 employees - it should either fire those 5,500 or reduce their pay.If an employee thinks they could make more money WITHOUT their job, or at another job - they should either quit or demand an increase in pay.

I really don't understand this mentality that so many people seem to have. 'A company is profitable, therefore, employees can't be fired!'

I worked for a company where the CEO felt the company was a big, happy family. As nobody was ever let go. But there was so much dead weight. But we were profitable....right until we weren't. Then, it was already too late. Laid off 1/4th of the staff, but they seemed to know exactly which 1/4th wasn't contributing....and I swear to God, productivity went up! Now, maybe I'm biased, but I swear, things were BETTER. As in, these people weren't just NOT contributing, they were actively impeding work.

Still, at that point, they company was so far gone, it didn't matter. I think it was 3 months more and the company declared bankruptcy and laid off almost another 1/2 of the employees.....while everyone who wasn't let go had started sending out resumes and even more people started to trickle out.

Well, you're kind of talking extremes. The focus should be on quality, and adjusting staffing to meet the standards that quality requires.

Coddling dead weight doesn't do that. But neither does shedding staff to make a buck. I stand by my comment earlier. It's incredibly lazy and most often ends up being self-defeating.

The mortgage business won't be in a slump forever. When it recovers and that portion of the business is restored, they will need to hire again. But they just lost people with a body of knowledge because of the layoffs. This will create quality problems.

Additionally, rehiring is an expensive endeavor. Not just because of salaries, but all the internal business processes required to bring new people on. Benefits, etc.

Downturns are a natural part of a business' lifecycle. Smart and nimble companies manage through them, without resorting to blunt tactics like layoffs. But, shareholders demand ever higher and ever consistent profits without regard for the health of the businesses that create those profits for them.

Added to that is the laughable notion of trickle down. Just what level of profit must be reached before that trickles down? It doesn't. And it's not for silly notions like "uncertainty."

This constant drive for consistent profits at higher and higher levels is not good for the sustainability of a business. It's unrealistic.

Diogenes:The mortgage business won't be in a slump forever. When it recovers and that portion of the business is restored, they will need to hire again. But they just lost people with a body of knowledge because of the layoffs. This will create quality problems.

You clearly don't know the financial industry. Shuffling mortgage around is a labor intensive position that requires no real skills. Its better to let them go then have them sit around updating Facebook all day. And Wells is very efficient at hiring and hiring people. When Wells needs to scale up again - they will put out the word and five thousand people will show up and they will be productive immediately.

Fark_Guy_Rob:If Wells Fargo felt it could be MORE profitable without 5,500 employees - it should either fire those 5,500 or reduce their pay.If an employee thinks they could make more money WITHOUT their job, or at another job - they should either quit or demand an increase in pay.

I really don't understand this mentality that so many people seem to have. 'A company is profitable, therefore, employees can't be fired!'

I worked for a company where the CEO felt the company was a big, happy family. As nobody was ever let go. But there was so much dead weight. But we were profitable....right until we weren't. Then, it was already too late. Laid off 1/4th of the staff, but they seemed to know exactly which 1/4th wasn't contributing....and I swear to God, productivity went up! Now, maybe I'm biased, but I swear, things were BETTER. As in, these people weren't just NOT contributing, they were actively impeding work.

Still, at that point, they company was so far gone, it didn't matter. I think it was 3 months more and the company declared bankruptcy and laid off almost another 1/2 of the employees.....while everyone who wasn't let go had started sending out resumes and even more people started to trickle out.

This is why no matter how mad you may be, you should not automatically sell your company stock when you get laid off. Then again, if you are the sort who takes sound financial advice, you don't own a lot of stock in the company you work for anyway.

cefm:They'll want those people back in less than 2 years - and they won't be able to get 'em. Instead they'll get new folks with less experience, no loyalty to the company, no customer service skills, and will generally be a shiattier company going forward than they would have been if they invested in maintaining a strong workforce.

Shiattier than Wells Fargo?! There's only, like, one step down from them, and that's BofA!

I've lived through several 'recessions' but it wasn't until the early 80's that I spotted businesses slashing the ranks of employees and people lining up to invest in them afterwards. Yuppies, usually, quick to capitalize on greater returns from the climbing profits now that there weren't so many pesky employees around to suck down the cash.

A bonus was that the remaining employees were so terrified of loosing their jobs that not only did they work harder, but many took pay cuts and loss of benefits, which translated into bigger corporate profits and greater returns for the investors.

I'm not sure when CEO's became gods, worth millions a year, plus Golden Parachutes so vast that even if they got fired they'd never really have to work again. Including the CEOs who did shiatty jobs or were so hostile towards the average consumer they were nearly psychotic.

Then again, I never expected to see so much of the nation in abject poverty due to the greed of financial institutions and have billionaires start popping up like popcorn. It seemed the more folks that lost their jobs and homes, the more billionaires appeared.

Sometime between the 80's and 2000's, a judge made the cap on interest rates, placed by the federal government decades ago to protect the average consumer, illegal and non-constitutional. Companies left skid marks jumping interest rates up over night.

I recall a time when it was never really hard to get a job, especially, for school kids, a summer one. Businesses were usually willing to hire on a new worker who looked like he might benefit the company. During the summer break and Christmas season, businesses were actively looking for temporary full time help.

Now, they seem looking for ways to fire or restrict the employees they have.

We're in a financial crisis now and yet I keep finding news reports mentioning how housing booms are on their way back in some areas -- even though thousands of repossessed homes lay empty across the country.

The financial situation is so f**ked up that I can't make any sense of it anymore.

Rik01:I've lived through several 'recessions' but it wasn't until the early 80's that I spotted businesses slashing the ranks of employees and people lining up to invest in them afterwards. Yuppies, usually, quick to capitalize on greater returns from the climbing profits now that there weren't so many pesky employees around to suck down the cash.

A bonus was that the remaining employees were so terrified of loosing their jobs that not only did they work harder, but many took pay cuts and loss of benefits, which translated into bigger corporate profits and greater returns for the investors.

I'm not sure when CEO's became gods, worth millions a year, plus Golden Parachutes so vast that even if they got fired they'd never really have to work again. Including the CEOs who did shiatty jobs or were so hostile towards the average consumer they were nearly psychotic.

Then again, I never expected to see so much of the nation in abject poverty due to the greed of financial institutions and have billionaires start popping up like popcorn. It seemed the more folks that lost their jobs and homes, the more billionaires appeared.

Sometime between the 80's and 2000's, a judge made the cap on interest rates, placed by the federal government decades ago to protect the average consumer, illegal and non-constitutional. Companies left skid marks jumping interest rates up over night.

I recall a time when it was never really hard to get a job, especially, for school kids, a summer one. Businesses were usually willing to hire on a new worker who looked like he might benefit the company. During the summer break and Christmas season, businesses were actively looking for temporary full time help.

Now, they seem looking for ways to fire or restrict the employees they have.

We're in a financial crisis now and yet I keep finding news reports mentioning how housing booms are on their way back in some areas -- even though thousands of repossessed homes lay empty across the country.

Fark_Guy_Rob:If Wells Fargo felt it could be MORE profitable without 5,500 employees - it should either fire those 5,500 or reduce their pay.If an employee thinks they could make more money WITHOUT their job, or at another job - they should either quit or demand an increase in pay.

I really don't understand this mentality that so many people seem to have. 'A company is profitable, therefore, employees can't be fired!'

I worked for a company where the CEO felt the company was a big, happy family. As nobody was ever let go. But there was so much dead weight. But we were profitable....right until we weren't. Then, it was already too late. Laid off 1/4th of the staff, but they seemed to know exactly which 1/4th wasn't contributing....and I swear to God, productivity went up! Now, maybe I'm biased, but I swear, things were BETTER. As in, these people weren't just NOT contributing, they were actively impeding work.

Still, at that point, they company was so far gone, it didn't matter. I think it was 3 months more and the company declared bankruptcy and laid off almost another 1/2 of the employees.....while everyone who wasn't let go had started sending out resumes and even more people started to trickle out.

We have a lot of dead weight in the country. Probably more than a quarter of the country.

But they gotta eat and pay their bills, too.

Capitalism is supposed to be great at creating wealth, right? I mean, that's the selling point in the 1950s spots narrated by Ronald Reagan.

Then it can afford to pay for the dead weight. Someone has to, and that someone is the one that can.

It seems silly to me that we are expect to make decades-long commitments to them through mortgages and loans but their commitment to us is zero. I understand there is a difference, I'm just pointing out that the totality of culpability seems to be a one-way street these days.

burning_bridge:It seems silly to me that we are expect to make decades-long commitments to them through mortgages and loans but their commitment to us is zero. I understand there is a difference, I'm just pointing out that the totality of culpability seems to be a one-way street these days.

sure haven't:Employees don't make the company happen, employees are an annoying cost. A liability that needs to be eradicated. If every company did away with these "employees", they would save millions to distribute to lottery-winning upper executives.

We'll get there someday. For now though, we can only cut bit by bit. Soon though, every company will gloriously be employee-free, and will finally be able to make the board even richer. It will be paradise.

Good post. An entertaining use of sarcasm/snark.

My problem, anecdotally, is I see this IRL at the company I work for all the time over the last couple of years. I work on the executive floor ( just a drone though ) and overhear a lot of meetings on how to "reduce employee expense". Since we are a service based company, one would think crapping on the very people providing the services we sell wouldn't be considered, but, here we are.

Skyd1v:sure haven't: Employees don't make the company happen, employees are an annoying cost. A liability that needs to be eradicated. If every company did away with these "employees", they would save millions to distribute to lottery-winning upper executives.

We'll get there someday. For now though, we can only cut bit by bit. Soon though, every company will gloriously be employee-free, and will finally be able to make the board even richer. It will be paradise.

Good post. An entertaining use of sarcasm/snark.

My problem, anecdotally, is I see this IRL at the company I work for all the time over the last couple of years. I work on the executive floor ( just a drone though ) and overhear a lot of meetings on how to "reduce employee expense". Since we are a service based company, one would think crapping on the very people providing the services we sell wouldn't be considered, but, here we are.

It's the new business mentality. American businesses are now so poor that they can't compete on the quality of their goods and services anymore... doesn't matter if they are selling cars, mutual funds, cameras, mortgages, snack food, or college degrees. They've cut costs too much by outsourcing production and planning for immediate obsolescence, and lost too many customers by treating their service workers like dirt and by designing products/services based on executive decision and "corporate direction" instead of customer feedback.

Because of this, they want the rules to favor them as much as possible. It's turned us into a country filled with patent trolls, contract employees, and empty storefronts. They also want to make sure their customer base is too uninformed to realize how poor their products/services are on a global scale.

Want a quick explanation as to the cause long-term recession? We are living in a consumer-based economy that no longer values its consumers.It's as simple as that, and it's in the deepest roots of everything that has happened over the last 33 years.

Well, let's do some job creating while we're all sitting down. We plan to hire twice as many as we laid off because we're only offering half the hours, $7.75 to start but after six months you could go as high as $8. That's an extra $5 a week in salary, not take-home of course. Don't push and shove, now, there are plenty of applications here.

That should shut them up. Have the car brought round, Jeeves, and tell my pilot to file a flight plan for Munich. I'm in the mood for a beer.

jayhawk88:Fark_Guy_Rob: I really don't understand this mentality that so many people seem to have. 'A company is profitable, therefore, employees can't be fired!'

Seems like there should be a balance, though. We're at a point now where if a company like Wells Fargo posts, say, a $1.1 billion quarterly profit, but Wall Street (somewhat) arbitrarily thought they should have made $1.2 billion that quarter, their stock will take a 10-15% hit and the talking heads are on TV for a week yelling "Sell, Mortimer, Sell". Or, if their profits only rose 10% instead of 11%....HOLY CRAP PANIC WHAT IS WRONG WITH WELLS FARGO??? There's nothing wrong with Wells Fargo, their profits rose 10% for pete's sake, but now a bunch of computer programs can make $47 million in 20 seconds shorting the stock.

People are routinely getting laid off/fired not because the company is doing terrible or they're dead weight, but because the company did slightly worse than the expectations of a bunch of individuals who's only interest in the company is how much money they can make off of it buying or selling their stock.

Can you point me to a company that's laid off employees because of missing analyst expectations?

Our brand of economics considers shareholders to be far more important than employees. It also generally doesn't consider individual performance when making cuts to appease said shareholders.

Remember that next time you're asked to stay late.

Very good.

This began with the Yuppies, who took advantage of the then new computer technology that allowed them to invest from home and cut out the professional Stock Investors, who charged a fee. They neglected to realize that for that fee they got the many years of the professional's wisdom in dealing with something as unpredictable as the stock market.

The some genius made an automatic investing program that you could set and forget -- but the program did not have the innate skills to abruptly stop selling shares when you realized that by doing so, you were contributing more harm than good.

So, in the 70's the market crashed.

Skilled investment companies knew when to halt runaway sales of stocks to prevent a crash or to lessen the impact. Machines don't.

Yuppies took advantage of the disaster by buying up stocks and eventually gaining enough power to actually force companies to change their business philosophy, starting with demanding greater profits in shorter times. A company which had churned out consistent profits for generations and kept it's employees working was no longer a good investment.

It had to generate major profits so the Yuppies could get greater returns on their investments. They didn't want to wait 20 years to become filthy rich like their forbearers did. They wanted it within 5. The result was major companies trimming their employee base, starting with long time, aging, loyal employees who had produced well for the companies, were coasting deservedly on their past work and close to retiring. They also slashed the accumulated retirement packages they had come to expect by forcing them out early.

Benefits were slashed and the 39 hour work week appeared to prevent mandatory benefits from being earned. Thousands of employees were laid off. Health insurance was cut because the companies usually paid a percentage of that. Accumulated vacation and sick days, unused, could no longer be saved and paid out in cash upon retirement. Use them or loose them became the philosophy.

If a company did not perform to the new standards, Yuppies transferred their investments elsewhere, which could cripple a business that had been established for years.

The Yuppies started the Greedy 80's, which in turn spawned a host of predatory businesses -- including these little payday loan companies which could and have charged as much as 500% interest if a client was late on a payment. Charge cards raised their interest rates dramatically and also started applying stiff penalties for late payments. Banks tripled their over draft fees and tripled them again, then started adding in previously never used service charges.Clever fellows developed ways to make money from waste, which is fine, but as their businesses grew, they increased the cost of their products, helping to negate the savings they once touted for the consumer. Recycling is now major business, earning billions a year.

In 1975, scrap paper companies would haul away bails of cardboard from department stores. They charged roughly $5.00 a bail, which could weigh nearly a ton. They would sell it to processing plants for maybe $20. Now, department stores can pay $65 a bail to get rid of it and the recyclers sell it for over $100 a ton. 'Clean' bails cost more. (Meaning bails opened up, scoured of all non-paper stuff like plastic, then rebailed and sold.)

Then came the house flippers. The businesses designed to fail to provide major tax write-offs for sports figures and wealthy investors. Developers discovered they could buy designated farm land for a song, due to regulations, hold it for a year or two, get it rezoned for development and sell it at a huge profit to build houses on. Taxes, BTW, on farm land are lower than land used for development. So, a win-win for the developers. Not so much for the consumers, who found independent farms vanishing and the cost of food creeping up.

The 80's ushered in an unprecedented age of greed that made the Age of the Robber Barons look like amateurs.

The hard working, loyal employee became expendable. Being a Company Man was no longer even worth the cost of a cup of coffee.

Yuppies also ushered in the Age of Litigiousness, suing the krap out of anyone for everything, making the USA the most litigious nation in the world and even further changing the way businesses functioned.

I was a Company Man. I basically lived on the job. I gave in hundreds of free hours and tons of additional work. I was fiercely loyal to the company. I even found ways to save it money. .... right up to the point where they fired me.

This is an unsurprising story, in that it is not unique. This saddens me.

Corporate greed, and individual greed with intentionally dulled empathy is an illness. A serious illness that has repeated itself through history. Perhaps it is our fate. But I feel pretty good about how I make what little money I do (from a moral perspective) and will never have to apologize for it.

Thank heavens I never got a real taste of it... I have an addictive personality and would hate to hate myself more than I do.

jayhawk88: ...if a company like Wells Fargo posts, say, a $1.1 billion quarterly profit, but Wall Street (somewhat) arbitrarily thought they should have made $1.2 billion that quarter, their stock will take a 10-15% hit and the talking heads are on TV for a week yelling "Sell, Mortimer, Sell". Or, if their profits only rose 10% instead of 11%....HOLY CRAP PANIC WHAT IS WRONG WITH WELLS FARGO??? There's nothing wrong with Wells Fargo, their profits rose 10% for pete's sake...

It isn't really about anything being wrong with the company or the company missing on numbers it "should have made;" it is about investor expectations/predictions/guesses turning out to be inaccurate, and investors adjusting the price that they're willing to pay for the company's shares, on the basis of adjusted information now available to them.

This is an unsurprising story, in that it is not unique. This saddens me.

Corporate greed, and individual greed with intentionally dulled empathy is an illness. A serious illness that has repeated itself through history. Perhaps it is our fate. But I feel pretty good about how I make what little money I do (from a moral perspective) and will never have to apologize for it.

Thank heavens I never got a real taste of it... I have an addictive personality and would hate to hate myself more than I do.

/fark money worshippers

Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtue, not vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventative law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear. - Alan Greenspan (1963)

Of course having said that...most of the problems in the capitalist system come from people acting criminal at worst or far less than virtuous at best. The problem isn't that Capitalism as system lacks some sort of inherent virtue promotion mechanism...so much is it that people in general are short term thinkers. Many of them are sociopaths on a spectrum ranging from *gave you a wedgie* to *killed you because you go in his/her way*

Did Wells Fargoneed to fire those 5500 individuals in order to perform better? Were all 5500 dead weight? I suppose that is a possibility. Much more likely is that this is a short term stunt to prop up profits for the Q4 reports. Sure its cynical but probably accurate. Many companies like Wells Fargo are lobbying Congress to be able to import more foreign workers as they fire existing domestic employees. The H1B system is used as a wage-slavery system by the corporations so they can pay a discount and hold down wages even further. (Citation) And yes I know he's a prof of computer science and no economics...doesn't make him wrong or uneducated in these regards.

sure haven't:We'll get there someday. For now though, we can only cut bit by bit. Soon though, every person will be their own company will gloriously be employee-free, and will finally be able to make the board even richer. It will be paradise.

sure haven't:Employees don't make the company happen, employees are an annoying cost. A liability that needs to be eradicated. If every company did away with these "employees", they would save millions to distribute to lottery-winning upper executives.

We'll get there someday. For now though, we can only cut bit by bit. Soon though, every company will gloriously be employee-free, and will finally be able to make the board even richer. It will be paradise.

You laugh, but I've read this same argument from at least one Farker I won't name.

TDBoedy:Did Wells Fargoneed to fire those 5500 individuals in order to perform better? Were all 5500 dead weight? I suppose that is a possibility. Much more likely is that this is a short term stunt to prop up profits for the Q4 reports. Sure its cynical but probably accurate. Many companies like Wells Fargo are lobbying Congress to be able to import more foreign workers as they fire existing domestic employees. The H1B system is used as a wage-slavery system by the corporations so they can pay a discount and hold down wages even further. (Citation) And yes I know he's a prof of computer science and no economics...doesn't make him wrong or uneducated in these regards.

Why do you hate the system of pigeon-holing people into one area of knowledge and assuming they can never have any more than one relevant skill on which they are qualified to speak?I bet you hate mindless bureaucracy, too.

gingerjet:Diogenes: The mortgage business won't be in a slump forever. When it recovers and that portion of the business is restored, they will need to hire again. But they just lost people with a body of knowledge because of the layoffs. This will create quality problems.

You clearly don't know the financial industry. Shuffling mortgage around is a labor intensive position that requires no real skills. Its better to let them go then have them sit around updating Facebook all day. And Wells is very efficient at hiring and hiring people. When Wells needs to scale up again - they will put out the word and five thousand people will show up and they will be productive immediately.

/stockholder in WFC//also an ex-employee

Seriously disagree with this point; a good underwriter, processor, and closer can be the difference between an easy, compliant process that helps the bank and borrower simultaneously vs. a shiatshow ordeal that eventually defaults. Mortgage process post Dodd-Frank is a completely different beast than it was three years ago, and there's a shrinking pool of qualified workers that really understand how it all works. IMO, WF is setting themselves up for long-term service problems.

Look, I agree that WF probably did need to lose some people (mortgages are way down, after all), but WF is notorious for hiring in masses and laying off everyone six months later. They've lost a large contingent of the eligible work pool that will hesitate to come back next time there's a round of hiring. Qualified candidates will eventually work for a place they'll still be employed for two years from now, and WF is going to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find untrained underwriters to screw up your loan.

TDBoedy:The H1B system is used as a wage-slavery system by the corporations so they can pay a discount and hold down wages even further. (Citation) And yes I know he's a prof of computer science and no economics...doesn't make him wrong or uneducated in these regards.

No, in fact it gives him an insider's perspective. The H1B's first market of abuse is the computer science industry. American universities still try to recruit hundreds of new students into tech degree programs every year, because they were such high-paying jobs during the dot-com bubble. But for the last 15 years, H1Bs have made most tech degrees into worthless scraps of paper... because India churns out 10-15 tech graduates for every one of ours. On paper, their degrees (and language proficiency) are equivalent. So by holding the H1B over their heads, tech companies have been able to hire 2-3 Indian graduates for the equivalent wages of every 1 American graduate. Americans taking those jobs are never able to repay their student loans, because they are forced to work for Indian wages (lest they be replaced by an Indian).

CEOs in non-tech fields took a good look at what was going on and said "damn, I gotta get me a piece of that action." Just about every single company and industry involved in the H1B game have experienced a drop in overall sales. They write it off as being caused by the poor economy, and hire more H1B employees to keep their profits high. It never crosses their selfish minds that the drop in sales isn't caused by the poor economy... It's helping to cause the poor economy by decreasing the collective spending power (and increase the debt ratio) of American consumers.

Didn't Henry Ford have some good quotes about treating his employees like potential customers?

WayToBlue:They should be keeping employees they don't need? Sounds like the kind of foolproof strategy that has made many of our government bureaucracies so efficient.

If they didn't need them, I'd expect them to be laid off in small numbers over a long period of time as real need rarely jumps up and down that suddenly. That strategy would allow the people to find jobs as the local economy would only need a few new job openings at a time. This massive dump of employees is more likely due to some policy decision by an exec rather than local determination of real need for workers. It also costs the tax payer money as the local economy can not absorb that many new workers at a time, so you have people hitting the social safety net.

clkeagle:TDBoedy: The H1B system is used as a wage-slavery system by the corporations so they can pay a discount and hold down wages even further. (Citation) And yes I know he's a prof of computer science and no economics...doesn't make him wrong or uneducated in these regards.

No, in fact it gives him an insider's perspective. The H1B's first market of abuse is the computer science industry. American universities still try to recruit hundreds of new students into tech degree programs every year, because they were such high-paying jobs during the dot-com bubble. But for the last 15 years, H1Bs have made most tech degrees into worthless scraps of paper... because India churns out 10-15 tech graduates for every one of ours. On paper, their degrees (and language proficiency) are equivalent. So by holding the H1B over their heads, tech companies have been able to hire 2-3 Indian graduates for the equivalent wages of every 1 American graduate. Americans taking those jobs are never able to repay their student loans, because they are forced to work for Indian wages (lest they be replaced by an Indian).

oh really now? Brookings found that h1b workers are paid 26% more than Americans, not the other way around

dumbobruni:clkeagle: TDBoedy: The H1B system is used as a wage-slavery system by the corporations so they can pay a discount and hold down wages even further. (Citation) And yes I know he's a prof of computer science and no economics...doesn't make him wrong or uneducated in these regards.

No, in fact it gives him an insider's perspective. The H1B's first market of abuse is the computer science industry. American universities still try to recruit hundreds of new students into tech degree programs every year, because they were such high-paying jobs during the dot-com bubble. But for the last 15 years, H1Bs have made most tech degrees into worthless scraps of paper... because India churns out 10-15 tech graduates for every one of ours. On paper, their degrees (and language proficiency) are equivalent. So by holding the H1B over their heads, tech companies have been able to hire 2-3 Indian graduates for the equivalent wages of every 1 American graduate. Americans taking those jobs are never able to repay their student loans, because they are forced to work for Indian wages (lest they be replaced by an Indian).

oh really now? Brookings found that h1b workers are paid 26% more than Americans, not the other way around